The Belgravia Dispatch:
Can’t say I’m surprised the first Republican Senator to come out in favor of closing Gitmo is a Cuban-American. The Castro-bashing is made harder, isn’t it, when Fidel can disingenuously and propagandistically play the Gitmo-is-on-my-shores card? And no, I’m not comparing in any way Castro’s decades long corrupt, totalitarian rule to a likely (at least arguably) constitutional detention center set up for enemy combatants during a time of national emergency. But you get my point, I think. And it’s Mel Martinez’s too. It’s a cost-benefit thing. I’m no longer persuaded that the national security and intelligence benefits that Gitmo provides aren’t outweighed by the (yes, often greatly exaggerated) public relations debacle Gitmo has become. I don’t care if ‘smart-piss’ raced around a building and up a vent to despoil the Koran, or if as Max Boot says, detainees defiled more Korans than guards ever did. The utilitarian bottom line here is, now several years out, and putting aside all the grossly hyperbolic claptrap in places like London and Lahore that makes Gitmo out to be some contemporary Auschwitz or Dachau: is Gitmo contributing more to our national security than it is hurting it? And I think the pendelum is certainly swinging more towards the latter of late.
This isn’t a debate about whether or not the United States is as bad as the former Soviet Union- of course we aren’t. Gitmo is not even slightly reminiscent of the Gulag Archipelago, and it was irresponsible for Amnesty International to say so.
It is, however, problematic to simply detain people indefinitely without a larger plan for doing something with them, and it has played into the hands of those who wish to bash America whenever possible. And that has been the most frustrating thing- the ham-handed way we have handled this. Of course most of the opposition to anything the United States has done comes from those who generally oppose the US no matter what. Most of the people who oppose Republican policies happen to be Democrats- but that doesn’t mean you ignore the Democrats when they have a point.
Our attitude was to give the middle finger to everyone, deny there were any problems anywhere, attack the media and attempt to kill the messenger, to lie, delay, and obfuscate, and because of an unwillingness or an inability to confront these issues, Gitmo has become a symbol for all that is wrong with the United States in much of the world’s eyes. Again, as Greg stated, the real important question should be:
The utilitarian bottom line here is, now several years out, and putting aside all the grossly hyperbolic claptrap in places like London and Lahore that makes Gitmo out to be some contemporary Auschwitz or Dachau: is Gitmo contributing more to our national security than it is hurting it?
Pride, standing up to opportunistic America-bashers, and everything else should run a distant second.
Darrell
Gitmo has become a symbol for all that is wrong with the United States in much of the world’s eyes
Explain for us again why “world opinion”, much of it hostile to American values, explain why this is a valid reason to close Gitmo.. because I’m not seeing it
And weren’t Amnesty Intl’s comments nothing but solid confirmation that in fact most of the criticism of Gitmo is in fact coming from wildly irrational America haters?
John Cole
Explain for us again why “world opinion”, much of it hostile to American values, explain why this is a valid reason to close Gitmo.. because I’m not seeing it.
Well, for one reason, you could make the argument that this may be helping to create more terrorists and jihadists than it is stopping, but that is but one of a number of arguments.
But you don’t really want anyone to explain to you why world opinion matters, because it has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you continue to reject the argument.
Which is fine, that is a valid position to hold. But don’t pretend you want it explained to you again. You just disagree and don’t give a shit what the rest of the world thinks, regardless of the repercussions of that attitude.
I do care, although not to the extent of some people who do legitimately fit into the ‘Blame America’ crowd. My primary concern is not getting our guys blown up and not getting attacked again, and I am willing to consider everything that will help to stop that.
James Emerson
and it was irresponsible for Amnesty International to say so.
I disagree. It was irresponsible AND illegal to manufacture a “gulag” of internment and torture centers. Is it any wonder we never signed the ICC accords? Is it any wonder that the Brits, who has signed the ICC accords, needed the UN option for a legalistic CYA?
C’mon people think! What have we gained from Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and the dozens of extraordinary rendition sites that we operate? Anything? Then ask yourself, have we irrevocably betrayed the ideals that made us the world’s “shining beacon?”
The answer is obvious.
Richard Bottoms
No much point trying to explain to the unhinged. Basically 9/11 justifies anything that is done in the name of protecting America.
We are the lone hyperpower and what do we care what the world thinks. It’s not like they can’t really do anything about it.
No, Gitmo isn’t Auschwitz or Dachau. It is, however a place of no legal representation and detention without charges, hearings, or recourse for virtually all the prisoners there. And that’s just fine with most folks in the R-column it seems.
For me the issue isn’t really Gitmo. Like most military operations that are under a spotlight I am sure most treatment and actions these days are pretty humane and follow the regs.
Frankly, I think the administration is happy to have Gitmo be the focus instead of Bhagram, Uzebekestan, and any other secret place where torture and even murder have occured. And most likely continues to this day.
Darrell
But you don’t really want anyone to explain to you why world opinion matters, because it has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you continue to reject the argument.
Not to be a smart ass here John, but no, it hasn’t been explained to me before why this sort of world opinion is so important to saving American lives. If you believe so, please link to when you explained it.. or otherwise give some sort of explanation beyond I “don’t give a shit about the world opinion, regardless of the repurcussions”
Yes, how wildly thoughtless and irresponsible of me. And exactly what are you suggesting these cause-and-effect ‘repurcussions’ are of holding these terrorists? Please provide logic and evidence. because what I see are dangerous killers being detained, with no easy answers as to what to do with them.
Kimmitt
Gitmo is not even slightly reminiscent of the Gulag Archipelago
I can’t agree; Gitmo is, in fact, reminiscent of one of the camps in the Gulag Archipelago. It’s not the same thing, but who would have noticed the AI report if they’d stuck to clinical language?
CadillaqJaq
I’m constantly amazed at the know-it-alls who are self-appointed experts on Gitmo havng never been there… or have they all spent time there?
John Cole posts, “It is, however, problematic to simply detain people indefinitely without a larger plan for doing something with them, and it has played into the hands of those who wish to bash America whenever possible.”
I’d be interested in anyone’s plan for some of the detainees future, especially the one’s whose nationality is questionable and the others whose country doesn’t want them back. I’m all ears friends: someone please tell me what to do with them, and if not detaining them at Gitmo, then where?
Or worse, just cut ’em loose and see how long it takes for them to be making major mischief? John, sadly IMO you are beginning to sound like a Democrat: easy to criticize, no solutions.
John Cole
John, sadly IMO you are beginning to sound like a Democrat: easy to criticize, no solutions.
Or, oddly enough, I am starting to sound like Bush, who also entertained the notion of repatriating a number of them and/or closing Gitmo.
As for a solution, I don’t have one, but that does not mean that I can;t recognize the situation appears to be becoming untenable. After all, I can’t lay an egg, but I can tell a good one from a bad one.
It is interesting to note that even if the Gitmo prisoners are tried and found not guilty, the current plan is to keep them anyway.
Do you think this can go on forever like this Cad?
Kimmitt
I’m constantly amazed at the know-it-alls who are self-appointed experts on Gitmo havng never been there… or have they all spent time there?
The Administration has asserted that the rule of law does not exist in Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court has declined to challenge this fact, and I believe them.
AlanDownunder
Darrell:
Explain for us again why “world opinion”, much of it hostile to American values
Darrell, the American values that we contempible aliens revere are the values that the present American administration has been busily discarding.
FredW
Sit back and ask yourselves “Why are we keeping detainees in Gitmo?” Why not, say, in the middle of the Utah desert or somewhere in Alaska? After all, in WWII we managed to have POW camps in the US and Canada. We even managed to hold “enemy combantants” that were now POWs (e.g. the German spies landed by submarine)
It is for one reason only — there is no law at Gitmo beyond what the President says is law. He is literally King there. And me, that is fundementally unAmerican.
scs
Ya’ll still don’t get the point (even though I posted it in past).
There is NO point in clamouring to give the prisoners at Gitmo lawyers or trials. Most, I believe, are religious extremists from many countries who volunteered to fight for the Taliban and were then captured on the battlefield. The prisoners did not break any laws of any country that I know of by fighting for the Taliban. With no broken laws, there is no trial to be held. Yet even though they did not break any laws, we do not want to release them, less they set off another bomb under a Hummer in Iraq.
The best we can do is perhaps break up the prison into a few in the Middle East, maybe the less dangerous ones in prisons in their home country and the middling dangerous ones in bases throught the Middle East, granting them communications to their families and some limited access to the media, so the world can check up on them. This shouldn’t be so hard to do as there aren’t too many prisoners left.
If some prisoners are too dangerous to fool with and move, perhaps there can be a faux military tribunal which at least details something publicly about who the prisoners are and why we think they should be held, as long as it doesn’t compromise national security. It may not meet legal standards but at least it will be something the public can chew on.
I think it’s the secrecy of the prison that contributes greatly to its bad name. We may not be able to release the prisoners yet but at least we can cut down on the secrecy.
Darrell
Good post scs, especially this part which you sum up very nicely: “The prisoners did not break any laws of any country that I know of by fighting for the Taliban. With no broken laws, there is no trial to be held. Yet even though they did not break any laws, we do not want to release them, less they set off another bomb under a Hummer in Iraq.”
Bingo. That is precisely the issue that John Cole and other critics should address. It’s an imperfect situation now, but better than the suggested alternative to close down Gitmo. The suggestion that Gitmo’s existence “creates terrorists” is ridiculous on its face. Yeah, let’s not fight or imprison any of these terrorists lest we make them angrier than they are now. Or does the ‘Gitmo creates terrorists’ crowd have another point besides that one
I would point out that secrecy on who we are holding is a good thing for intelligence gathering, in that we don’t want to tip off the terrorists as to who we have and who we don’t. Keep them guessing and worried
John Cole
Bingo. That is precisely the issue that John Cole and other critics should address. It’s an imperfect situation now, but better than the suggested alternative to close down Gitmo.
Wait one fucking minute here.
Your firm belief is that you can just gather up whoever you want, throw them in Gitmo, not allow them to prove or disprove their innocence or guilt, keep them there indefinitely, and maybe, just maybe, at some vague point in the future, you will come up with a more sophisticated plan to deal with them?
And I am the one who has to come up with a fucking solution?
I have a solution. Charge them with something and then try them. Or come out and publicly declare you intend to keep them forever until the ‘war on terror’ is won- whatever that means.
scs
Thanks Darrell. But one more point on the secrecy issue. I know that secrecy was important in the beginning after Gitmo was set up, but I don’t understand how its important several years later. I’m sure the terrorits have figured out by now who was captured and who wasn’t, so we might as well make it public. Of course I agree that there might be some terrorist names and backgrounds we may want to still keep secret, but I hardly believe most of them have to be. We should open up everything as much as we can.
Since John wants us to charge the prisoners, perhaps we could make up a charge such as “foreign aggitation” and hold them for that? Don’t know if that would fly either though.